SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order dated 15/04/2026 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], for A.Y. 2017-18.

“1. AGAINST REJECTION OF REQUEST TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] has erred in denying to condone the delay in filing the appeal by vaguely observing that ‘The assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected as the reasons stated for condoning the delay are not satisfactory’ - without proper application of mind.

(b) The Appellant submits that the said decision of the CIT(A) in a cryptic order, without considering the facts of the case and the supporting documents, is highly inappropriate and does not meet with the principles of natural justice.

(c) The Appellant, therefore, prays that the CIT(A) be directed to: (i) consider the facts and documents furnished by the appellant, (ii) pass an order to condone the delay and (iii) adjudicate on the Grounds of Appeal appropriately.

Without prejudice to Ground 1 above,

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,90,000 as unexplained income under S. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) without considering the statutory tolerance band (safe harbour) of 10%.

(b) The Appellant submits, with respect, that the value of the property as per the Departmental Valuation Report is Rs.72,10,000 as against the Transaction Value (Purchase Consideration) of Rs.70,20,000. As the difference of Rs.1,90,000 is much less than the statutory Safe Harbour (Tolerance) rate of 10%, the addition under S.56(2)(vii)(b) is unjustified.

(c) The Appellant, therefore, prays that the said addition of Rs.1,90,000 be kindly deleted.

(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.70,20,000 as Unexplained Investment under S.69 of the Act.

(b) The Appellant humbly submits that the addition is sustained by the CIT(A) without properly considering and appreciating the details about the sources of Rs.70,20,000 paid by him to purchase 103, So Lucky Corner Co-op. Premises Society Ltd., Gundavli, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099. In view of that, the addition of Rs.70,20,000 is not justified.

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER (c) The Appellant, therefore, prays that the said addition of Rs.70,20,000 be kindly deleted. 4. LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ETC. The Appellant Trust craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the Grounds before disposal of this appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The assessee is an individual. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.70,20,000/-. The stamp duty value of the property was Rs.74,25,000/-, whereas as per the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer dated 07/11/2023, the value of the property was determined at Rs.72,10,000/-.

3.1. The Ld.AO observed that the difference between the valuation determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer and the purchase consideration amounted to Rs.1,90,000/- and made addition of the said amount u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of payment of Rs.70,20,000/- towards purchase of the property and accordingly made further addition of the said amount u/s. 69 of the Act.

3.2. Consequently, an aggregate addition of Rs.72,10,000/- was made and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.86,64,880/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.3. There was a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), for which the assessee sought condonation. The

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER Ld.CIT(A), however, rejected the request for condonation of delay by merely observing that the reasons stated by the assessee were not satisfactory. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the additions aggregating to Rs.72,10,000/- and rejected the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.1. The Ld.DR relied on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER 5.1. It is a settled principle that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach ought to be adopted where the explanation furnished demonstrates sufficient cause and there is no material to suggest deliberate inaction or mala fide conduct on the part of the litigant. The expression “sufficient cause” deserves to be construed so as to advance substantial justice rather than to defeat adjudication on merits on account of a technical lapse.

5.2. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court has emphasised that a liberal approach should ordinarily be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay so that substantial justice is not defeated on account of a technical lapse. It has been observed that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly and that, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

5.3. Further, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the length of delay is not by itself decisive and that the acceptability of the explanation furnished for the delay is the primary consideration. Similar principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh & Ors. [2010] 6 SCC 786, wherein it was held that unless mala fides or deliberate negligence is attributable to a litigant, a pragmatic and justice-

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER oriented approach ought to be adopted while considering condonation of delay.

5.4. In the present case, the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) is only 60 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s application for condonation by merely observing that the reasons furnished were not satisfactory, without dealing with the explanation and supporting material placed by the assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or intended to gain any undue advantage. Considering the comparatively short period of delay and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves an opportunity to have the appeal adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, in exercise of the principles governing condonation of delay contemplated u/s. 249(3) of the Act, the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned.

5.5. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay and the issues arising from the assessment order require proper adjudication after considering the evidences and explanations of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after considering all material and supporting evidences that may be furnished by the assessee and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5.6. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant documents, explanations and

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER supporting evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed and In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

PRABHASH SHANKAR BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 11/09/2026 Shamik Sr. P.S.

ITA 6053/MUM/2026 SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER Copy to: SATPAL DARSHAN SINGH BHINDER, 403/ G WING, ROYAL CLASSIC, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI WEST, NEXT TO 1 CITY MALL,, MUMBAI-400053, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 31(1)(1), KAUTALYA BHAVAN, 2 BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400051, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE